Geographic Variation and Capital Ecology: The East-West Divide in Encryption Investment

In the field of cryptocurrency investment, we are witnessing a geographical mutation. Some Chinese investment institutions are choosing to contract due to losses in the BTC Layer 2 track, turning to the secondary market or focusing on the exit of projects they have invested in. Meanwhile, Silicon Valley giants continue to adhere to long-termism, raising funds on a large scale and expanding their investment size.

This differentiation reflects deeper ecological differences. The West dominates in conceptual innovation and capital concentration, while the East is responsible for project development and providing liquidity. Although trading platforms with Chinese backgrounds still control a large amount of liquidity, the entire industry is pursuing "internationalization," gradually moving away from the Chinese-speaking market.

From exchanges to stablecoins and compliance levels, the East seems to be showing a backward trend. This trend is even more pronounced in the Web3 era. With certain AI models shifting from "exporting to domestic sales," traditional venture capital is beginning to revive, but the model of "dollar + offshore + venture capital + Chinese market" is disappearing. Instead, local governments and state-owned capital are more focused on "hard technology" and localized development.

The reasons for this situation are not complicated. Silicon Valley investment institutions naturally possess a global vision, and their investment targets are often embedded in global information capitalism platforms. In contrast, Chinese investment institutions find it difficult to directly embrace the local market and can only rely on the Western halo, competing with peers by selling liquidity in the Chinese-speaking market.

In this pattern, certain investment giants can withstand multiple failures until the next disruptive company emerges. For most investors, however, finding the right position in this geographical mutation will be a long-term challenge.

Mobilization and Speculation: The Future of the Chinese Encryption Market

Throughout Western history, finance has often been used as a tool for mobilization. The successful cases of the Netherlands and the United Kingdom demonstrate that social participation and financial innovation are crucial to a nation's destiny.

In the current encryption market, different investment institutions exhibit different styles. Some focus on trading products, while others adhere to personal aesthetic preferences. Innovation often occurs within the individual, rather than on the high ground of social media. What true founders may need is not just capital or fame, but support at key junctures.

However, the future is not necessarily progress. Various platforms are becoming "lords" of the information age, hindering newcomers in the name of progress. We need new paths for innovation and breakthroughs.

Currently, the Eastern market seems to have become a dumping ground for tokens. Despite having massive liquidity, it struggles to cope with the challenges posed by Western capital, policies, and exchanges. The contradiction between speculation and long-termism is becoming increasingly prominent. True long-termists must first address how to survive until the day their ideas are validated.

Conclusion

In this wave, the true heroic colors are beginning to emerge. Cultural traditions may become a burden for projects, and those that rely on unreasonable terms to attract investment are destined to struggle in the long run.

The imbalance between the East and the West has a long history, and from the perspective of the historical long river, it seems to have been foretold long ago. The key lies in whether contemporary encryption practitioners can leverage local liquidity advantages to create public products aimed at the global market, gaining recognition and returns worldwide. This will be a daunting but promising challenge.